uwuhn

Going to guess defense contractor.

They're opening Seattle offices this year. Or at least that's the plan? It might be affected by the epidemic.

>It's adding a degree of separation in the same way that saying water instead of dihydrogen monoxide adds a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of chemistry.

The degree of separation in our discussion has to do with adding an additional step to knowing the origin of a virus. What would the intent behind your example be?

You're the only one saying "removed" here. Removal and abstraction/adding an extra degree of separation are not the same thing. Removal means you can't access the information at all, no matter how many additional steps you take. If removal is what you have had in mind all along, that goes back to where I was going with my original question, and your response here provides me with a definite answer. Thank you :)

>It's not adding a degree of separation between name and knowledge, no. It's removing unnecessary and also potentially-damaging information from the name of a pathogen

How is this not just adding a degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the "unnecessary and also potentially-damaging" information?

That's...exactly what it is. You have to perform one more step to reach the information. It's not "removed" because you can still access it. That's what an additional degree of separation means.

>Why are you not advocating for a name like SARS-CoV-2, which contains more information and is more accurate?

I don't care about the name at all, and you are making huge assumptions here. I would even argue that having SARS in the name is problematic due to its prior association with a specific region in the general public's mind. I'm surprised you didn't consider that before me.

The point is that information is deliberately abstracted behind an additional layer for the sake of making it more difficult for the average person to obtain, and the ultimate intent behind that added friction.

You aren't responding to my question regarding intent at all.

>This is to help curb irrational fears against a certain area.

...by adding an extra degree of separation between the name and knowledge of the origin. Right? Do you disagree?

Easily fixable if you stop testing, or officially attribute death to something else.

No, the course is 10 days IIRC.

I bought aquarium chloroquine to use as a last-ditch resort if I basically have to choose between taking it or dying due to hospital overcapacity. No harm to patients there IMO. I spent $60 for the 10 grams recommended for a course (.5 g a day). That was last week, and it's so much more expensive now.

Where do you recommend buying them?

My ideal mix is either 80/20 or 60/40 remote/in-office. I have been 20/80 my entire career up to the CV outbreak (1 day WFH minimum every week).

I prefer 100% WFH to that, but I dislike not going to the office at all. This is my first time being 100% WFH for this long -- my previous max was a full week.

>But how can you objectively establish that somebody is unattractive?

Dating apps are a good data point to start with.

It's the same underlying app/framework, but not the same content and users, right?

Don't forget the service industry. There's a correlation between how attractive you are and your earning ceiling for bartending and waitering/waitressing.

You can hack that judgement with money.